Richard Serra was on CharlieRose
last night, and he described his sculptures very much in a way an architect would describe a project: space, experience, materiality, design process, building process, structural expression. Where do you think his work fit in the architectural/art realm?
but sculpture is "space, experience, materiality, design process, building process, structural expression"...
the difference between art and architecture seem to only be determined by its inhabitability. But sculpture creates space...space is inhabitable...especially at the scale of Serra's work.
Now, I think the difference between art and architecture is intention.
whattodo...that's exactly what i want to explore...the issue of intention and/or function (as in this case, the function is in itself the built concept...the experience - is that valid?)
the notion of architecture must be inhabitable is very intriguing to me though...(i love walls in space)
steven...the co-worker behind me struggled all morning with the placement of an exit sign...i heard him ask someone "does it have to be visible"...made me smile!
if thats the criteria than a painting can be architecture. you can inhabit a painting just as you can inhabit a sculpture. the building process and elementary compared to even a pole barn. the serra may be architectonic but it is not architecuture.
765...it's a new interview, to mark the opening of the Moma exhibition...i must've missed last year's interview...\\
i think each of us have our own personal concept of architecture, and which values define it...that's why i wanted to hear where, if at all, within their definition, people place serra's work.
personally, my concept of architecture is extremely loose...
andy goldsworthy
barragan
ps...not trying to offend or provoke anyone...just my personal point of view, which i myself classify as "extremely loose"
steven's comment about the exit sign reminded me of something that David Lewis said about some of their interiors/restaurant projects... most of it was technically classified as "furniture" as far as the codes were considered... so they had less strict requirements and somehow less liability... he didn't go into it in any depth... but it was an interesting thought...
@ Simples,
If one is going to suggest that earth/nature art a la Goldsworthy is architecture than certainly Serra is too.
I am pretty sure he would say his work is not though.
In the interview (an i am paraphrasing here) he seems to suggest that because he is interested in how the basic form of material(s) influences form of shape within a context of space
He mentions that Luis Kahn is one of the few architects he felt shred this approach,
He quotes Kahn, something along the lines "i ask a brick what it what to be"
the inherent form of material=form
I don't know personally although there is a fine line between installation (either outdoors or indoors) art and architecture.
I like Serra's point that a key difference is functionality.
His work has no function besides art (for arts sake?)
Is architecture usually like this?
I would say perhaps for temporary pavillion (PS1 courtyard or Serpentine etc)
from what i hear, serra always resists any labels...surely, he would resist labeling his sculptures architecture. Namhenderson, I like goldsworthy (there is a DVD documentary on him...amazing artist...all about process), but i used his walls to compare to barragans walls to play with that thin line:(art/sculpture/installation/archit....)
i agree that functionality is key, and like Vado says, Serra does believe art is "purposefully without purpose"...although, the way i see it, and this is where things get a little blurry for me, the function of his sculptures is to provide the spectator with an spatial experience. The experience itself is its function...and i am not sure if that is "architecturally" valid.
What do we gain by drawing a line between architecture and art (either for the purposes of preventing cross-contamination, or in order to transgress it and proclaim inter-disciplinarity)?
Surely there is a much smoother continuum between art and architecture?
You misunderstood, toroid. I'm suggesting there is a continuum between art and architecture. I'm not suggesting that there is no difference, or that we should treat all architecture as art, or all art as if it was architecture.
You misunderstood, toroid. I'm suggesting there is a continuum between art and architecture. I'm not suggesting that there is no difference, or that we should treat all architecture as art, or all art as if it was architecture.
Vado, you are correct...i am applying functions and concepts where there purposefully are none...
i believe the purpose for there being no function, is that one's experience is allowed to serve as the function itself...
its function is to be!
agfa8x...i agree...i'd like to think that the architecture/art continuum is recognized through design (of course there are so many other valid parameters to architectural design)
"applying functions and concepts where there purposefully are none"
use and purpose are different. Serra's career has been based on purpose... from purpose of material, to purpose of site, to purpose of commissioner, purpose of self, purose of light, etc.
My assumption is that Serra's quote (useless art) was said in a facetious tone?
"An artist is somebody who produces things that people don't need to have"
-Andy Warhol
there is a line and there has to be a line. architecture (design) and ART are two seperate things. "...when they get mixed up things get all fucked up and end up in the toilet..." (can't remember who said this). Art has meaning beyond all money. it may be that the art did not take any time, but has tremendous meaning. you can almost always come up with a better architectural solution given more time, i.e. $... It is hard to convince someone that that installed chunk of drywall is worth more than 25 bucks.
minimalism (in the serra, judd et al ) is about visual impact of a piece that exists indeterminate of function, concept, impression, expression, experience and all the other isms that the viewer puts on it. just because mr. x thinks it functional and ms. y thinks its architectural in their own mind or opinion. that ain't what it is.
agfa - i respect your opinion and follow your statements well. the continuum lies in the realm of the mind - though both pursuits are phenomenological in nature, pure art lies outside the bounds of mere functionality - Architecture is BOUND by pure functionality.
creativity binds the two pursuits together, and to call Architecture "an art" is as far as one can go, i believe.
what is the purpose of seeking the continuum? do you perceive a hierarchy of meaning or feel a diminishment of one pursuit by the inherent distictions?
once when i was in berlin the serra piece outside the scharoun's philharmonie was providing not only a wonderful shelter for an excellent saxophone player, it was amplifying the sax's sound in a particularly eerie and beautiful way. whether it's architecture or not, i, as an architect, responded to it from an architectural point-of-view.
well my tirade is about what minimalism is(was) to the minimalists. of course, everyone is going to bring themselves to the thing that they are viewing/experiencing/loving/hating/appropriating/
serra's and other artists' relationships to architecture and landscape were analyzed in rosalind krauss' well known essay, the sculpture in the expanded field.
sculpture is typically free from the constraints that architecture faces. various things are capable of performing certain architectural uses (as in Steven's example above), but I don't believe that makes them architecture. and i'm fairly certain serra doesn't consider his work to be architecture. time to listen to the interview...
(and it's great seeing you here, nam, and reading your thoughts. i can imagine having this conversation in your livingroom, on that ridiculous couch, with the usual accompaniments...hope you make your way up here sooner or later...)
i work with artists quite a lot in my daily life. they aren't architects. what they make is not architecture. it is spatial, architectural even. but not architecture.
that is not because of purpose or intent, it is mere reality.
architecture has a number of requirements that artists will not deal with because they make the work impure.
when i work on architecture projects with artist i have to remind them that a building or a space is not a piece of art in that purist sense, and bringing their work out and mixing it with my own so that their work doesn't just become graphic design is very very hard. Fun, rewarding, but very very hard....Apparently herzog and Demeuron are able to do this succesfully (working/collaborating with artists as shared designers that is)...anyway, that experience is how i have learned that art isn't architecture....
jump, correct me if i am wrong, but has not Vito Acconci's recent work been featured in architecture publications?
vado, he also said that architecture can never be art, because of it's utility - or something to that effect...
i like the torqued ellipses, i liked walking between those massive plates in bilbao. it altered my sense of space, i felt the claustrophobia, i felt the weight or compression, i felt the sense of danger. the psychological imprint on my body left me quite altered. at the same time though, while this may not be "architecture" does it not function in the in-between? it creates space, does it not? i know there is no utility in it, but i am compelled to consider that the work has a relative impact on architecture and bodily experience....?
I think the assumption that sculpture and architecture serve two very different purposes doesn't undermine the fact that similar pursuits are being generated across different mediums.
Sculpture can be architectural and Architecture can be sculptural.
In fact, Gehry and Serra have had discussions (and heated arguments) ad nauseum about how they're pursuing something very similar.
Yes, they happen to serve different funtions. They know that.
Richard Serra's Architecture
Richard Serra was on CharlieRose
last night, and he described his sculptures very much in a way an architect would describe a project: space, experience, materiality, design process, building process, structural expression. Where do you think his work fit in the architectural/art realm?
i would say that it fits in the realm of sculpture. because it is sculpture.
but sculpture is "space, experience, materiality, design process, building process, structural expression"...
the difference between art and architecture seem to only be determined by its inhabitability. But sculpture creates space...space is inhabitable...especially at the scale of Serra's work.
Now, I think the difference between art and architecture is intention.
I think this IS architecture...
i can never get this resizing right :(
is it not architecture because it doesn't have an exit sign?
; )
steven...it just go cut off in the picture ;0
whattodo...that's exactly what i want to explore...the issue of intention and/or function (as in this case, the function is in itself the built concept...the experience - is that valid?)
the notion of architecture must be inhabitable is very intriguing to me though...(i love walls in space)
steven...the co-worker behind me struggled all morning with the placement of an exit sign...i heard him ask someone "does it have to be visible"...made me smile!
if thats the criteria than a painting can be architecture. you can inhabit a painting just as you can inhabit a sculpture. the building process and elementary compared to even a pole barn. the serra may be architectonic but it is not architecuture.
HAHAHa Charlie is yelling at Richard...he's so passionate.
I gonna finish listening now...
interesting discussion.
i was thinking about this same thing when i saw this slideshow on his work yesterday.
cool stuff.
personally, i like his work, but i'm not sure if i'd go so far as to call it architecture.
If that's the Charlie Rose from a year or two ago, I think I've seen it.
He says something like: 'all architects ever do is rip off sculpture, that's all they've been doing for centuries ...'
He makes the point that he's not interested in tectonics, in how things come together, he just wants to make things out of one kind of stuff.
... and then he goes on to boast that he can draw better than Frank Gehry.
reducing Serra's work to "architecture" degrades sclupture.
has anyone seen stella's painting into architecture exhibit? i found it to be good sculpture, bad architecture.
I'll add this to the mix:
When I was sixteen I saw "Switch" at the Gargosian in NY and decided that night I would become an architect.
...can't everybody draw better than Frank Gehry?
765...it's a new interview, to mark the opening of the Moma exhibition...i must've missed last year's interview...\\
i think each of us have our own personal concept of architecture, and which values define it...that's why i wanted to hear where, if at all, within their definition, people place serra's work.
personally, my concept of architecture is extremely loose...
andy goldsworthy
barragan
ps...not trying to offend or provoke anyone...just my personal point of view, which i myself classify as "extremely loose"
simples - I see that now, I'll have to check out this new one.
The older one is worth watching, too, it's linked there in the sidebar on the same page.
765...ah ha! good call, thanks!
from the news
you can check out an online version of the MOMA exhibition here
i've always been a big fan of serra's work...
steven's comment about the exit sign reminded me of something that David Lewis said about some of their interiors/restaurant projects... most of it was technically classified as "furniture" as far as the codes were considered... so they had less strict requirements and somehow less liability... he didn't go into it in any depth... but it was an interesting thought...
awwwwyeeah, my brethrinansistrin - charlie rose beta!
@ Simples,
If one is going to suggest that earth/nature art a la Goldsworthy is architecture than certainly Serra is too.
I am pretty sure he would say his work is not though.
In the interview (an i am paraphrasing here) he seems to suggest that because he is interested in how the basic form of material(s) influences form of shape within a context of space
He mentions that Luis Kahn is one of the few architects he felt shred this approach,
He quotes Kahn, something along the lines "i ask a brick what it what to be"
the inherent form of material=form
I don't know personally although there is a fine line between installation (either outdoors or indoors) art and architecture.
I like Serra's point that a key difference is functionality.
His work has no function besides art (for arts sake?)
Is architecture usually like this?
I would say perhaps for temporary pavillion (PS1 courtyard or Serpentine etc)
to quote serra. art is not useful. it is useless.
from what i hear, serra always resists any labels...surely, he would resist labeling his sculptures architecture. Namhenderson, I like goldsworthy (there is a DVD documentary on him...amazing artist...all about process), but i used his walls to compare to barragans walls to play with that thin line:(art/sculpture/installation/archit....)
i agree that functionality is key, and like Vado says, Serra does believe art is "purposefully without purpose"...although, the way i see it, and this is where things get a little blurry for me, the function of his sculptures is to provide the spectator with an spatial experience. The experience itself is its function...and i am not sure if that is "architecturally" valid.
What do we gain by drawing a line between architecture and art (either for the purposes of preventing cross-contamination, or in order to transgress it and proclaim inter-disciplinarity)?
Surely there is a much smoother continuum between art and architecture?
what do we gain??
um, dry beds to sleep in...
you're applying functions and concepts where there purposefully are none.
You misunderstood, toroid. I'm suggesting there is a continuum between art and architecture. I'm not suggesting that there is no difference, or that we should treat all architecture as art, or all art as if it was architecture.
You misunderstood, toroid. I'm suggesting there is a continuum between art and architecture. I'm not suggesting that there is no difference, or that we should treat all architecture as art, or all art as if it was architecture.
(stated twice for emphasis, perhaps?)
Vado, you are correct...i am applying functions and concepts where there purposefully are none...
i believe the purpose for there being no function, is that one's experience is allowed to serve as the function itself...
its function is to be!
agfa8x...i agree...i'd like to think that the architecture/art continuum is recognized through design (of course there are so many other valid parameters to architectural design)
you can believe it. but you'd be wrong.
ouch!
"applying functions and concepts where there purposefully are none"
use and purpose are different. Serra's career has been based on purpose... from purpose of material, to purpose of site, to purpose of commissioner, purpose of self, purose of light, etc.
My assumption is that Serra's quote (useless art) was said in a facetious tone?
"An artist is somebody who produces things that people don't need to have"
-Andy Warhol
there is a line and there has to be a line. architecture (design) and ART are two seperate things. "...when they get mixed up things get all fucked up and end up in the toilet..." (can't remember who said this). Art has meaning beyond all money. it may be that the art did not take any time, but has tremendous meaning. you can almost always come up with a better architectural solution given more time, i.e. $... It is hard to convince someone that that installed chunk of drywall is worth more than 25 bucks.
minimalism (in the serra, judd et al ) is about visual impact of a piece that exists indeterminate of function, concept, impression, expression, experience and all the other isms that the viewer puts on it. just because mr. x thinks it functional and ms. y thinks its architectural in their own mind or opinion. that ain't what it is.
agfa - i respect your opinion and follow your statements well. the continuum lies in the realm of the mind - though both pursuits are phenomenological in nature, pure art lies outside the bounds of mere functionality - Architecture is BOUND by pure functionality.
creativity binds the two pursuits together, and to call Architecture "an art" is as far as one can go, i believe.
what is the purpose of seeking the continuum? do you perceive a hierarchy of meaning or feel a diminishment of one pursuit by the inherent distictions?
once when i was in berlin the serra piece outside the scharoun's philharmonie was providing not only a wonderful shelter for an excellent saxophone player, it was amplifying the sax's sound in a particularly eerie and beautiful way. whether it's architecture or not, i, as an architect, responded to it from an architectural point-of-view.
you know, for what it's worth.
well my tirade is about what minimalism is(was) to the minimalists. of course, everyone is going to bring themselves to the thing that they are viewing/experiencing/loving/hating/appropriating/
serra's and other artists' relationships to architecture and landscape were analyzed in rosalind krauss' well known essay, the sculpture in the expanded field.
Damn, why you getting all ideological all the sudden, vado?
Do you really think Serra's still a minimalist?
Have you watched the videos and seen what he's got to say?
sculpture is typically free from the constraints that architecture faces. various things are capable of performing certain architectural uses (as in Steven's example above), but I don't believe that makes them architecture. and i'm fairly certain serra doesn't consider his work to be architecture. time to listen to the interview...
(and it's great seeing you here, nam, and reading your thoughts. i can imagine having this conversation in your livingroom, on that ridiculous couch, with the usual accompaniments...hope you make your way up here sooner or later...)
yeah...I'll bow out of this thread until after work. Way to involved to lightly comment on during the day...
aml - that's a great essay...read it in theory class during undergrad...have referenced it many times since.
vado...we agree then...what i am trying to say "its function is to be" = there is no function
steven ward...beautiful example of what i am unsuccessfully trying to say...
aml..thanks for the link...
sure... i need to listen to the serra interview before commenting... but i have work to finish first. hopefully later.
i work with artists quite a lot in my daily life. they aren't architects. what they make is not architecture. it is spatial, architectural even. but not architecture.
that is not because of purpose or intent, it is mere reality.
architecture has a number of requirements that artists will not deal with because they make the work impure.
when i work on architecture projects with artist i have to remind them that a building or a space is not a piece of art in that purist sense, and bringing their work out and mixing it with my own so that their work doesn't just become graphic design is very very hard. Fun, rewarding, but very very hard....Apparently herzog and Demeuron are able to do this succesfully (working/collaborating with artists as shared designers that is)...anyway, that experience is how i have learned that art isn't architecture....
serra's "architecture" in basel is used as a public toilet - i.e. bums piss on/in it.
i guess that makes it useful.
jump, correct me if i am wrong, but has not Vito Acconci's recent work been featured in architecture publications?
vado, he also said that architecture can never be art, because of it's utility - or something to that effect...
i like the torqued ellipses, i liked walking between those massive plates in bilbao. it altered my sense of space, i felt the claustrophobia, i felt the weight or compression, i felt the sense of danger. the psychological imprint on my body left me quite altered. at the same time though, while this may not be "architecture" does it not function in the in-between? it creates space, does it not? i know there is no utility in it, but i am compelled to consider that the work has a relative impact on architecture and bodily experience....?
I think the assumption that sculpture and architecture serve two very different purposes doesn't undermine the fact that similar pursuits are being generated across different mediums.
Sculpture can be architectural and Architecture can be sculptural.
In fact, Gehry and Serra have had discussions (and heated arguments) ad nauseum about how they're pursuing something very similar.
Yes, they happen to serve different funtions. They know that.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.